[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Fair enough. I'm probably not going to convince you at this point, so I don't have much more to say other than I'll happily continue driving my less-safe vehicles rather than devoting my energy to worrying about what I'm missing out on by driving a giant hunk of gas guzzling steel. I feel that life is better enjoyed by taking some risks and not worrying about things out of our control. I could be worrying about some tree falling on our house and crushing everything too after being struck by lightening, but I don't, and won't.

The irony here is you're trying to convince me not to worry about accidents. I don't, because I'm in a tank.

For someone who supposedly isn't worried about it either, you doth mightily protest my lack of worry.

[andi*pandi]

My first car was a tank. Go tanks!

[subego]

I should add, my prioritzarion of safety had much to do with the SO being the primary driver. If it was just me, I'd feel differently.

The one accident it was in was getting rear-ended by a tiny sports car. There was a scratch on the rear bumper. The sports car's hood accordioned.

[subego]

To contrast somewhat, my previous car was a Cherokee, which would be much worse in an accident. Unloaded, it's front-heavy and tippy.

Still a fine car though. Hauled many a full load.

[Phileas]

Not trying to channel Rob, but I think it's interesting how safety is almost entirely perception based. If it's big and heavy, it's got to be safe, right? Except, that's not the case as early SUVs have so conclusively proved. Yes, I am aware that modern SUVs are a lot safer for driver and passenger, except they achieve that safety at the expense of other.

Anyway, not to start a flame war, I'd love one of these Elios for a daily urban commuter. Just as much as I'd like a Grand Cherokee Diesel or a Mercedes 350 ML BlueTEC as a tow vehicle for our Airstream.

[subego]

Am I saying bigger is safer?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I had to LOL when I read this. Is this supposed to clinch the deal ?

Seriously, 3.5mm audio Line-In is the minimum they need to provide.

-t

I was going to say "brakes" with a laughee face, but decided to just list what it does offer to be fair. The answer to your question of course is, nope. I think you have to want that mode of transportation. I just don't.

I've been a little hard on besson here to be honest. It's subjective. I don't really have anything against them, but if one gets in my way I'mma run it up in 'em like some kind of horrible Monster Truck show mishap.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The answer to your question of course is, nope. I think you have to want that mode of transportation. I just don't.

How much cost would a line in add ? $3? $5? $10?

This just shows how some engineers are real idiots. Who the f$&@ cares about AM and FM these days ? Grandpa maybe, but he is hardly the target audience.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The irony here is you're trying to convince me not to worry about accidents. I don't, because I'm in a tank.

For someone who supposedly isn't worried about it either, you doth mightily protest my lack of worry.

This is really circular.

Did you buy your vehicle because you wanted a tank? Would you worry about accidents if you didn't have your tank?

[Shaddim]

Recently I bought an older Bentley, and I have to say that I'd feel comfortable leveling small buildings in that car.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is really circular.

I think you meant "binary"

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did you buy your vehicle because you wanted a tank? Would you worry about accidents if you didn't have your tank?

Only in a super-tiny car on the interstate.

As I said, getting a tank was a high priority, but I bought my vehicle because I wanted to get from A to B.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

How much cost would a line in add ? $3? $5? $10?

This just shows how some engineers are real idiots. Who the f$&@ cares about AM and FM these days ? Grandpa maybe, but he is hardly the target audience.

-t

I'm with ya. I mean I don't know if the console has an aux-in or any such thing. Are you saying it does not have a line-in?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Recently I bought an older Bentley, and I have to say that I'd feel comfortable leveling small buildings in that car.

I owned a 1964 Bentley for a while. I was 25 years old and it cost me the grand total of £8000 to purchase. It was an awesome car and surprisingly cheap to run, apart from gas of course. It was a living room on wheels.

I sold it when I couldn't renew on the secure parking I stored it at. This was in central London and I just didn't feel comfortable road parking a beautiful car like that.

Tank indeed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm with ya. I mean I don't know if the console has an aux-in or any such thing. Are you saying it does not have a line-in?

I don't know, but the way they were listing even the most basic features of a car, I concluded that NOT mentioning line in means it's not offered.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

I owned a 1964 Bentley for a while. I was 25 years old and it cost me the grand total of £8000 to purchase. It was an awesome car and surprisingly cheap to run, apart from gas of course. It was a living room on wheels.

I sold it when I couldn't renew on the secure parking I stored it at. This was in central London and I just didn't feel comfortable road parking a beautiful car like that.

Tank indeed.

Yep, it's a beast, and they're such gorgeous cars, and shockingly easy to drive, despite weighing >7000lbs.

I bought a `78 MPW Corniche coupe for $18k (used to belong to Merle Haggard) and we've been restoring it to its former glory, it's mechanically sound, more or less, but cosmetically challenged. It had most recently been parked in a storage locker for the last 10 years, but before then it had served as a high-end taxi for a posh hotel, after Merle got rid of it in 1988. It's really loaded-up, even has silk headliner and curtains (which are motorized), and red calfskin suede upholstery. Swwwanky.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The average commute in the US is approximately 25 minutes each way. That's nearly an hour in a vehicle every day. Even the mundane would prefer a higher, safer perspective, plush leather interior, greater head and leg room, with perhaps some TV, and other amenities found in an average living room over, say... a golf cart vulnerable to everything including high winds and windspeeds and essentially looks like a vehicle more suited to breaking landspeed records than comfortable commuting.

This still doesn't make much sense to me.

I would argue:

1) "Higher, safer perspective" is based on partially false premises, because it is my understanding that visibility of things a very short distance ahead of the driver (e.g. animals, logs, whatever) is often an issue with SUVs.

2) I've always found TVs to be entirely pointless because they are obviously unsafe for drivers to use, and it is so easy to hook up a laptop or some other device to a cigarette lighter to watch TV or whatever you want with the screen positioned however you want (and to take the device inside with you when you get home, in the event you don't finish whatever you were watching during the ride).

3) There are no rules that say that you can't have seats that are equally, or more comfortable in a smaller vehicle.

4) As a driver you will always have limited leg room since you need to reach the pedals with your legs partially bent. I generally prefer to move the seat closer to the steering wheel for longer trips anyway, since it is easier on your shoulders to not have to be reaching forwards and partially up to access the steering wheel

5) You don't need an SUV to have plenty of leg and head room as a passenger

6) All of these arguments for big hunks of steel overlook the intimacy of driving. I'm not a big driving aficionado like many on this forum, but even I can feel that there is nothing there when you are just pointing a big hunk to steel

7) In regards to the subego arguments about collision safety, if somebody is safety minded should they buy a hummer and hope that they don't hit a semi?

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I think what you are against are the inexpensive economy class vehicles, and they often tend to be smaller, but again, many of the things you've listed are not inherent in smallness.

The Elio cars might be labeled as economy class, and they may be far more inexpensive to build and sell, but it isn't a given that the driving experience will be uncomfortable just because there isn't a damn TV.

The only features I care about are:

- audio aux in
- cruise control (if I plan to travel with the vehicle)
- AC
- power windows are nice, but probably not required
- power steering
- airbags and ABS are nice and seem to be standard these days
- trunk/cargo space

My wife's Smart has seat warmers which are kind of a pointless toy. I see some of the phone/car integration as the future of GPS rather than GPS devices built into cars, what else is there that one really needs?

My point is I kind of think sometimes we are going entirely the wrong direction in pushing car makers to invest in silly toys like TVs when they could be putting more into economy, alternative fuels, and features which could be genuinely useful.

[reader50]

No pics posted inline. Let's fix that.



Elio Pictures page

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This still doesn't make much sense to me.

I would argue:

1) "Higher, safer perspective" is based on partially false premises, because it is my understanding opinion that visibility of things a very short distance ahead of the driver (e.g. animals, logs, whatever) is often an issue with SUVs.

The overwhelming majority of SUV manufacturers employ a "cab-forward" design. This means there is little to no hood even visible from the driver's perspective that would obstruct their view. In fact when considering the angles involved, it might be easier to see an object, like say a child on tricycle or big wheel immediately in front of you from a higher perspective than it would a lower perspective. You're making zero sense to me.

Have you ridden in an SUV in the last 15 years?

2) I've always found TVs to be entirely pointless because they are obviously unsafe for drivers to use, and it is so easy to hook up a laptop or some other device to a cigarette lighter to watch TV or whatever you want with the screen positioned however you want (and to take the device inside with you when you get home, in the event you don't finish whatever you were watching during the ride).

I would think a TV built into and optimized for use within the vehicle would be preferable to a laptop precariously perched on the passenger seat tethered to a cigarette lighter which I'm guessing is not available in the Elio.

And why is it all about you anyway? Do you not ever ride with someone else or are you just sitting your laptop on your passenger's lap?

3) There are no rules that say that you can't have seats that are equally, or more comfortable in a smaller vehicle.

4) As a driver you will always have limited leg room since you need to reach the pedals with your legs partially bent. I generally prefer to move the seat closer to the steering wheel for longer trips anyway, since it is easier on your shoulders to not have to be reaching forwards and partially up to access the steering wheel

5) You don't need an SUV to have plenty of leg and head room as a passenger

Of course not, it's just that larger vehicles tend to offer more cargo space overall and most often result in greater head and leg room. Don't take my word for it, snatch up three SUVs vs three Sedans at random and run the numbers. The seats go up and down and back and forward and in and out all while heating your tushy... or the other 3 passengers who matter just as much as you. None of which are available in the Elio.

6) All of these arguments for big hunks of steel overlook the intimacy of driving. I'm not a big driving aficionado like many on this forum, but even I can feel that there is nothing there when you are just pointing a big hunk to steel

This is just straight, narrow-minded. I dare say driving has as much history in larger vehicles as it does your notion of the more intimate vehicles.

7) In regards to the subego arguments about collision safety, if somebody is safety minded should they buy a hummer and hope that they don't hit a semi?

Egadz. Intellectual integrity hinges on one's representation of your caricature of safety-minded that they should choose between a motorcycle side-car or a Sherman tank? Maybe he's just as much heated seats-minded, or cargo-minded, and the safety-piece being a statistical advantage is just icing on the cake?

I think your problem, as evidenced by the points you're making and the way you're making them; is that you're only thinking of yourself. Not only are there millions of people in large families and all the things that go with it like birthday parties, trips back and forth to the park, school, softball, soccer, football, friends, (like besson who'd call you first when they needed help moving all of their wasteful usage of space and energy), and in real crappy weather, but there are 50+ million hunters and anglers, 56 million golfers, etc...

Perhaps most don't want a personal transport unit like the Elio and maybe one of those reasons might be an appreciation for the intimacy of driving a vehicle that literally meets all of their needs.

[besson3c]

I'm not Rob, I'm not saying that nobody should own an SUV, I'm just saying that for many people the uses you've listed are part-time uses. I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but don't jump the gun and project stuff like that please.

Yes, I'm looking at this from my vantage point, but there are many divergent vantage points, and that's exactly my original point in this thread. Again, it's a shame that *some* buy SUVs to fulfill very part-time needs, and that it will be interesting to see if people go for something like the Elio for what they could do really well: provide cheap urban transportation, particularly for commuting, perhaps as a second vehicle.

That's all, don't construe my pushing you to see things outside of the usual box as a Rob-esque anti-SUV rant.

[andi*pandi]

In most every scenario I've ever seen, the TV/DVD player is in the back seat, for the smaller passengers. Not for the driver.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In most every scenario I've ever seen, the TV/DVD player is in the back seat, for the smaller passengers. Not for the driver.

Yeah, so why can't the kids just get themselves a portable DVD player or laptop and call it a day? I guess different strokes different folks, but if people are going to be close minded about the idea of driving a "motorcycle side-car" isn't being close minded about the idea of TVs being a compelling feature fair play?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, so why can't the kids just get themselves a portable DVD player or laptop and call it a day? I guess different strokes different folks, but if people are going to be close minded about the idea of driving a "motorcycle side-car" isn't being close minded about the idea of TVs being a compelling feature fair play?

Not if you have kids.

[andi*pandi]

We have a portable dvd player for long trips. It served us well way back, but it's tricky to hold for a small child, never mind two that are sharing. Batteries and headphones get accidentally unplugged, etc etc. Wireless headphones would also be nice. The new car didn't have an option for a built-in but we are envious of those that do. Less hassle. We are thinking of getting a new dvd system... or giving in to the option of just buying two ipad minis...

as for the thought that the audience for a motorcycle car might not have kids... well the elio people think they do, one of the promo shots has a family of 4 standing in front of it. (?)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not if you have kids.

Well, yeah, that's a given.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

We have a portable dvd player for long trips. It served us well way back, but it's tricky to hold for a small child, never mind two that are sharing. Batteries and headphones get accidentally unplugged, etc etc. Wireless headphones would also be nice. The new car didn't have an option for a built-in but we are envious of those that do. Less hassle. We are thinking of getting a new dvd system... or giving in to the option of just buying two ipad minis...

as for the thought that the audience for a motorcycle car might not have kids... well the elio people think they do, one of the promo shots has a family of 4 standing in front of it. (?)

2 in 2 vehicles?

It almost makes sense, price wise.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

Am I saying bigger is safer?

Originally Posted by subego 

Is my argument bigger is better, or is it heavier is better?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

7) In regards to the subego arguments about collision safety, if somebody is safety minded should they buy a hummer and hope that they don't hit a semi?

WTF, man?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

WTF, man?

What is your point then? Bigger is not necessarily heavier, and heavier is where it is at safety-wise?

[subego]

As I said, an important factor is density.

My car is much tinier than a Suburban, but is only about 800 pounds lighter.

A Secret Service Suburban is the size of a normal Suburban, but it's a ****ton heavier.

[Phileas]

Just as an aside, we haven't used the DVD in our Odyssey once and I can't foresee a future where we/the kids will. It's kind of yesterday's tech.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's all, don't construe my pushing you to see things outside of the usual box as a Rob-esque anti-SUV rant.

Originally Posted by besson3c

All of these arguments for big hunks of steel overlook the intimacy of driving. I'm not a big driving aficionado like many on this forum, but even I can feel that there is nothing there when you are just pointing a big hunk to steel

Okay, tell ya what... as soon as you do a better job of representing your arguments so they don't sound like anti-SUV rants, the sooner I'll not construe them as such. Deal? Otherwise, you're not really pushing me to see anything other than how important SUVs have become to society and why lonely shut-ins might be annoyed by them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

In most every scenario I've ever seen, the TV/DVD player is in the back seat, for the smaller passengers. Not for the driver.

That's what I mean; besson's only thinking of besson. Every one of his points relate to a single person and his exclusive 10 cu ft of needs.

Let's be clear here, the bulk of this sentiment comes from an ideological bend and the reason it's "important to get you to see outside the box" is because the current box uses more fossil fuels, period. He'd render everyone childless, in charcoal grey jumpsuits, doing nothing more than commuting back and forth to the Obama Corps offices in their personal, urban transport units. Otherwise, he's asking you to care for and insure two vehicles when one has suited you and your entire family's needs just fine the past 20+ years. Of course, being able to help him move all his junk is just the perk of having a friend with one of these big hunks of steel.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what I mean; besson's only thinking of besson. Every one of his points relate to a single person and his exclusive 10 cu ft of needs.

Let's be clear here, the bulk of this sentiment comes from an ideological bend and the reason it's "important to get you to see outside the box" is because the current box uses more fossil fuels, period. He'd render everyone childless, in charcoal grey jumpsuits, doing nothing more than commuting back and forth to the Obama Corps offices in their personal, urban transport units. Otherwise, he's asking you to care for and insure two vehicles when one has suited you and your entire family's needs just fine the past 20+ years. Of course, being able to help him move all his junk is just the perk of having a friend with one of these big hunks of steel.

Given the state of the environment in general and fossil fuels in particular, I do think that discussion and discourse beats closing our eyes and arguing that consumer preference trumps all other arguments.

As somebody who grew up in Europe, where fuel prices have driven the sales of smaller cars for decades, I am constantly amused by the North American addiction to large cars, often dressed up as and hidden behind a safety argument. European highway traffic moves at speeds unheard of in the US and Canada. Yet small passenger cars still manage to, safely, share these road with trucks, vans and 18-wheelers just as we do over here.

I drive a large car myself, a Honda van, because I appreciate the convenience it delivers for a family with three kids under the age of four. But the second the kids are old enough not to need car seats anymore, I'll switch to a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. It will still be an SUV, we need towing capability, but it will in all likelihood be as green a diesel as I can possibly find and afford.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep, it's a beast, and they're such gorgeous cars, and shockingly easy to drive, despite weighing >7000lbs.

I bought a `78 MPW Corniche coupe for $18k (used to belong to Merle Haggard) and we've been restoring it to its former glory, it's mechanically sound, more or less, but cosmetically challenged. It had most recently been parked in a storage locker for the last 10 years, but before then it had served as a high-end taxi for a posh hotel, after Merle got rid of it in 1988. It's really loaded-up, even has silk headliner and curtains (which are motorized), and red calfskin suede upholstery. Swwwanky.

Nice. I bought mine from an elderly gentleman who had it parked in an underground garage of the building I worked in at the time. I got chatting to him one day and he mentioned he was trying to sell the old car and I made him an offer.

One of the reasons it was so affordable was that it was a really simple vehicle, just well put together. Parts were easily available via various enthusiast's clubs and maintenance was so simple, my local mechanic - who admittedly was a bit of a classic car buff - could easily do it.

Driving it was just awesome. I was sad to sell it, but street parking just wasn't an option and the closest secure parking that wasn't costing a fortune was 1/2 an hour away, making it impossible to use the car as a daily driver. I replaced it with a 1964 Land Rover - same vintage, very different car.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what I mean; besson's only thinking of besson. Every one of his points relate to a single person and his exclusive 10 cu ft of needs.

Yes, that's why discussions with Besson are so frustrating.

He'll argue as if there is a clear right or wrong, whereas in most cases, the items involved are preferences and personal choices that have nothing to do with right or wrong.

Plus, like with the SUV example, he has no f$&@ing clue what he's talking about.

-t

[besson3c]

Of course there is preference involved here. If this was an ideological thing I'd still be in subego's face, but I've backed off. Challenging viewpoint is sometimes my way of getting to know how others think. Sometimes it results in my changing my mind a little (or a lot), sometimes once I see that there is an impasse I just let it go. There is very little subject matter I'm so ideological about that I can't be swayed, or will get in your face about something until you run out of endurance.

I know it is easy to construe challenging somebody with an alternative viewpoint (sometimes playing the role of devil's advocate), and some ideological battle to the bitter end. The fact that ebuddy felt like bringing up Obama made it clear to me that he saw this discussion as an ideological thing. I need to find a way to not cause that to happen, I guess, and keep intensity at appropriate levels.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, that's why discussions with Besson are so frustrating.

He'll argue as if there is a clear right or wrong, whereas in most cases, the items involved are preferences and personal choices that have nothing to do with right or wrong.

Are arguments against your economic theories also preference and personal choices, or are they just flat-out wrong? Who and what decides the difference?

[Uncle Skeleton]

The concept of this car appeals to me, half in a pragmatic way and half in an ideological way. I would like to adopt a less-is-more lifestyle, and I would even like to be a little bit of a jerk about it. But 3 wheels is a bad number of wheels. That thing is going to tip right over when you least want it to. Two wheels works (most of the time) because you can lean to counter-act the instability. With 3 wheels you lose that. Would it have been that hard to put a 4th wheel on there?

(PS, also, what's the deal with those motorcycle-like tricycles? 2 in the rear is even more crazy that 2 in the front; how do those things not tip over on every turn?)

[besson3c]

I wonder if the 3 wheels is one of its secrets to the fuel economy it gets?

I think we should all hope that there is some level of success with this car, as hopefully it will encourage competition and greater experimentation.

The hybrid vehicles more or less launched as experimental vehicles, no?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The concept of this car appeals to me, half in a pragmatic way and half in an ideological way. I would like to adopt a less-is-more lifestyle, and I would even like to be a little bit of a jerk about it. But 3 wheels is a bad number of wheels. That thing is going to tip right over when you least want it to. Two wheels works (most of the time) because you can lean to counter-act the instability. With 3 wheels you lose that. Would it have been that hard to put a 4th wheel on there?

(PS, also, what's the deal with those motorcycle-like tricycles? 2 in the rear is even more crazy that 2 in the front; how do those things not tip over on every turn?)

It's possible there's some sort counter-tilt system.

I was originally thinking gyros, which would cost too much, but then it occurred to me you could just slave the tilt to the steering. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Given the state of the environment in general and fossil fuels in particular I do think that discussion and discourse beats closing our eyes and arguing that consumer preference trumps all other arguments.

To ignore or marginalize consumer preference requires a mindset that would seek to dictate how others should live their lives based on your interpretation of the "state of the environment and fossil fuels".

As somebody who grew up in Europe, where fuel prices have driven the sales of smaller cars for decades, I am constantly amused by the North American addiction to large cars, often dressed up as and hidden behind a safety argument.

As a life-long American who frequents a forum with an international audience, I'm repeatedly amused at the apparent European obligation to ridicule Americans on enter matter here. In this case, the irony is almost painful.

European highway traffic moves at speeds unheard of in the US and Canada. Yet small passenger cars still manage to, safely, share these road with trucks, vans and 18-wheelers just as we do over here.

I drive a large car myself, a Honda van, because I appreciate the convenience it delivers for a family with three kids under the age of four. But the second the kids are old enough not to need car seats anymore, I'll switch to a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle. It will still be an SUV, we need towing capability, but it will in all likelihood be as green a diesel as I can possibly find and afford.

• Your appreciation for the "convenience" of a larger vehicle apparently trumps all other arguments including concerns for the state of the environment and fossil fuels. Your Americanization is coming along well.
• The average commute time in the EU is approximately 13 minutes greater than in the US, the differences in levels of emissions between the US and the EU are negligible, as are traffic deaths per capita, yet the US currently registers nearly twice the vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants than in the EU. In other words, the higher rate of speeds enjoyed by the average Jack in the EU as well as the sacrifices in smaller cars are essentially for naught. May as well tell your friends abroad to slow down, stretch out, and enjoy the conveniences you've come to appreciate. Of course, while you're toting your family around in the SUV, you're welcome to ignore the statistically superior crash test ratings and well-documented safety advantages of a larger vehicle if that makes you feel more reckless.
• The newer diesel engines that don't emit a deal-breaking amount of carbon particulates actually require much more fossil fuel energy to produce and the fuel itself is much more costly. Not to mention the smell-pollution of the damned things. And there are few things more amusing than a VW Beetle that sounds and smells like a 16-wheeler.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know it is easy to construe challenging somebody with an alternative viewpoint (sometimes playing the role of devil's advocate), and some ideological battle to the bitter end. The fact that ebuddy felt like bringing up Obama made it clear to me that he saw this discussion as an ideological thing. I need to find a way to not cause that to happen, I guess, and keep intensity at appropriate levels.

I think Turtle gave you some good information for introspect and you essentially threw it back in his face. This matter is purely subjective and the fact that you felt obligated to bring up entirely irrelevant matters against Turtle just proves that you're (again) projecting your problems onto other people. I'm glad however to see that you're taking greater ownership of your issues.

To be clear, there certainly is a demonstrable trend among those who decry SUVs and they often follow along ideological sensitivities including distaste for consumerism generally and fossil fuels specifically. The Obama Corps piece was obviously sarcasm, but I'll try to find a way to not cause your misunderstanding, I guess.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To ignore or marginalize consumer preference requires a mindset that would seek to dictate how others should live their lives based on your interpretation of the "state of the environment and fossil fuels".

Except of course there is now a widely accepted interpretation of the state of the environment and fossil fuels, at least by those of us who believe in, and put their trust in, science rather than wishful thinking. This has nothing to do with personal interpretation or preference.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As a life-long American who frequents a forum with an international audience, I'm repeatedly amused at the apparent European obligation to ridicule Americans on enter matter here. In this case, the irony is almost painful.

Observation of fact ≠ ridicule. The most commonly produced argument in favour of large vehicles is safety.

Your appreciation for the "convenience" of a larger vehicle apparently trumps all other arguments including concerns for the state of the environment and fossil fuels. Your Americanization is coming along well.

Fair enough. I am aware of the irony. I do what I can to mitigate the effects of my choice, by using public transport, biking and walking whenever possible.

The average commute time in the EU is approximately 13 minutes greater than in the US, the differences in levels of emissions between the US and the EU are negligible, as are traffic deaths per capita, yet the US currently registers nearly twice the vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants than in the EU. In other words, the higher rate of speeds enjoyed by the average Jack in the EU as well as the sacrifices in smaller cars are essentially for naught.

Incorrect. U.S. vehicle CO2 emissions still almost double that of Europe, and also Japan. In the US, the market’s average CO2 output is 268.5 g/km. This figure compares very unfavorably to Japan (130.8 g/km) and Europe’s five biggest markets, which average 140.3 g/km.

Also incorrect is your statement regarding traffic deaths per capita. Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitant in the US is 12.3 - worse than the Ukraine, where the number is 11.2 or even Uzbekistan.

In Germany (small cars, high speed) the number is 4.5, in France 5.5 (small cars, high speed) , in the UK 3.5 (small cars, low speed) . Whoops.

May as well tell your friends abroad to slow down, stretch out, and enjoy the conveniences you've come to appreciate. Of course, while you're toting your family around in the SUV, you're welcome to ignore the statistically superior crash test ratings and well-documented safety advantages of a larger vehicle if that makes you feel more reckless.

I am not sure if you realize that you a: made my point for me, as in larger vehicles do not contribute to a reduction in traffic fatalities per capita and b: that you're contradicting yourself by claiming in the next sentence that larger vehicles do somehow contribute to traffic safety.

The newer diesel engines that don't emit a deal-breaking amount of carbon particulates actually require much more fossil fuel energy to produce and the fuel itself is much more costly. Not to mention the smell-pollution of the damned things. And there are few things more amusing than a VW Beetle that sounds and smells like a 16-wheeler.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A Mercedes ML 350 BlueTEC, as an example, takes neither more energy to produce, nor is the fuel more costly (outside the US), nor is there smell pollution, nor does a modern diesel engine sound like a truck engine.

Your entire post is made up.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wonder if the 3 wheels is one of its secrets to the fuel economy it gets?

Not really, my Morgan gets ~25MPG, unless I flog it, and then it's closer to 20.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not really, my Morgan gets ~25MPG, unless I flog it, and then it's closer to 20.

You've got a Morgan? Awesome. Pics?

Ever done any hill trials in it?

[subego]

Speaking of flogging... my Cherokee got spectacular mileage at 40 mph, but that dropped to shit at useful speeds (60+).

[reader50]

The 3 wheels will contribute a bit to the MPG. You eliminate 2 wheel bearings, the weight of the tire + wheel + brake + support framing, and remove one tire's rolling resistance. Tire and wheel costs also get subtracted from the production price.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if ditching one tire gained more than 5 MPG. The high mileage will come from reduction in frontal area (wind resistance), and only secondarily from weight reduction / rolling resistance reduction. You could probably get nearly as much highway MPG* by stretching it to 4 seats and normal vehicle weight, so long as you kept the small frontal area.

* vehicle weight will count against city driving MPG.

[subego]

Or four wheels.

[Phileas]

The three wheel thing isn't half as bad as people think. It looks extremely stable in the videos. I'd love to take one for a spin.

[subego]

Or a flip.